Thank you for the very interesting information about the "blue ribbon panel of PhDs that NASA/EP hired to review the Eagleworks Lab's theoretical and experimental work last summer." This is very relevant information to EM Drive Developments.

As a follow up to my previous post and in the spirit of open disclosure, I'm including our last null-thrust test that ran the RF amp at 10.0Adc while its RF power was being dissipated in a 100W, 50 ohm dummy load positioned in place of the test article on the torque pendulum (TP), a picture of the new heat shields for our torque pendulum's upper and lower torsion springs, (more belts and suspenders to mitigate thermal drifts in the TP baseline), the reversed test setup drawing and the best reversed thrust plot obtained just before or during when our second and last 120W max RF amplifier was dying from internal corona discharges around its RF output circulator. Apparently the RF amp's internal gas pressure had gone down from 1 Bar to an estimated 10 Torr or less after a few days leaking air in a hard vacuum. And 0.1-to-10.0 Torr is where glow discharges are the easiest to ignite with RF signals. So much for EMPower's "hermetic" sealed RF amplifiers...

Best, Paul March

First off congratulations, and thank you very much for the information.

One question though. The use of a dummy load to the best of my understanding provides evidence to support that the thrust measurement device is not generating false positive data. Is it possible to run the Frustum in a null configuration? If so, is that in the plans before the next report is published?

Birchoff:

"Is it possible to run the Frustum in a null configuration? If so, is that in the plans before the next report is published?"

Yes and yes. In fact it was one of the requests made by the blue ribbon panel of PhDs that NASA/EP hired to review the Eagleworks Lab's theoretical and experimental work last summer. Even if will take a new mounting arrangement to get it accomplished.

Overall though the blue ribbon panel's experimentalists appeared to be pleased with our previous and upcoming lab work. However they ripped into Sonny's QVF/MHD conjecture because it relies on the quantum vacuum being mutable and engineer-able whereas the current physics mainstream thinks that the quantum vacuum is an immutable ground energy state of the universe that can-NOT be used to convey energy or momentum as proposed by Dr. White. However they brushed aside Sonny's QVF based derivation of the Bohr hydrogen atom electron radius as a "mathematical coincidence" and didn't have a word to say what the Casimir effect and other quantum vacuum phenomenon were caused by, that can only occur only if the QV is mutable and can convey energy and momentum. So Sonny and Jerry Vera took it upon themselves last fall to increase this mathematical coincidence from one to more than 47 times as they explored the QV created atomic electron shell radii for atoms up to atomic number 7 all based on the QV being the root cause for all of it including the origins of the electron and all other subatomic particles.

BTW, IMO Jim Woodward's Mach-Effect (M-E) conjecture that is based primarily on SRT and GRT, is still in the running for a way to explain his and our test results to date. However the M-E also has its detractors since it requires that instantaneous Wheeler/Feynman radiation reaction forces being required between a local time varying mass and all the other mass/energy in the casually connected universe, since this mechanism is used to balance the M-E's energy & momentum conservation books. In the end analysis though I think that the ME will rest on the quantum nature of space-time, since in Woodward's eyes the gravitational field IS space-time, and in our eyes GRT's space-time is in reality the quantum vacuum that probably has at least 4 spatial dimensions and one time dimension!

Best, Paul March

Thanks for the insight. what does Dr. White believe he has to do in order to prove or disprove that his conjecture explains the behavior observed when the truncated frustum is energized appropriately? Assuming all the testing currently being done is successful and you get a successful set of replications from other labs. The only thing we would be able to conclusively claim is that the device, built as describes, provides thrust. How does Dr. White plan to show that the device behaves as described by his theory? Also, if Dr. White cannot prove that his theory completely explains the observations, what would be the next steps to find an explanation for the observation? And would we need to have such a theory before we begin using this thing in well defined use cases like ISS or satelite station keeping?

Thank you for the very interesting information about the "blue ribbon panel of PhDs that NASA/EP hired to review the Eagleworks Lab's theoretical and experimental work last summer." This is very relevant information to EM Drive Developments.

Thank you for the very interesting information about the "blue ribbon panel of PhDs that NASA/EP hired to review the Eagleworks Lab's theoretical and experimental work last summer." This is very relevant information to EM Drive Developments.

Sorry, I didn't know that Jim Woodward's work had become a hot potato, so I'll go to the M-E thread if the M-E topic comes up again.

Best, PM

I was trying to convey how pleased to hear back from you and how excited I was about the news you conveyed and how I wanted you to continue posting. It was my poor attempt at preventing this communication from being shut down again

Indeed we are all very delighted to hear from you Paul. This thread, and thread 1 has been a fury of activity trying to explore this proposition that we can possibly achieve all electric thrust in the vacuum of space without carrying propellant, and what it all means for science and humanity's future.

Given the reported results in vacuum, this is progress.

Patiently looking forward to reading "Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum"

Indeed we are all very delighted to hear from you Paul. This thread, and thread 1 has been a fury of activity trying to explore this proposition that we can possibly achieve all electric thrust in the vacuum of space without carrying propellant, and what it all means for science and humanity's future.

Given the reported results in vacuum, this is progress.

Patiently looking forward to reading "Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum"

As a follow up to my previous post and in the spirit of open disclosure, I'm including our last null-thrust test that ran the RF amp at 10.0Adc while its RF power was being dissipated in a 100W, 50 ohm dummy load positioned in place of the test article on the torque pendulum (TP), a picture of the new heat shields for our torque pendulum's upper and lower torsion springs, (more belts and suspenders to mitigate thermal drifts in the TP baseline), the reversed test setup drawing and the best reversed thrust plot obtained just before or during when our second and last 120W max RF amplifier was dying from internal corona discharges around its RF output circulator. Apparently the RF amp's internal gas pressure had gone down from 1 Bar to an estimated 10 Torr or less after a few days leaking air in a hard vacuum. And 0.1-to-10.0 Torr is where glow discharges are the easiest to ignite with RF signals. So much for EMPower's "hermetic" sealed RF amplifiers...

Best, Paul March

First off congratulations, and thank you very much for the information.

One question though. The use of a dummy load to the best of my understanding provides evidence to support that the thrust measurement device is not generating false positive data. Is it possible to run the Frustum in a null configuration? If so, is that in the plans before the next report is published?

Birchoff:

"Is it possible to run the Frustum in a null configuration? If so, is that in the plans before the next report is published?"

Yes and yes. In fact it was one of the requests made by the blue ribbon panel of PhDs that NASA/EP hired to review the Eagleworks Lab's theoretical and experimental work last summer. Even if will take a new mounting arrangement to get it accomplished.

Overall though the blue ribbon panel's experimentalists appeared to be pleased with our previous and upcoming lab work. However they ripped into Sonny's QVF/MHD conjecture because it relies on the quantum vacuum being mutable and engineer-able whereas the current physics mainstream thinks that the quantum vacuum is an immutable ground energy state of the universe that can-NOT be used to convey energy or momentum as proposed by Dr. White. However they brushed aside Sonny's QVF based derivation of the Bohr hydrogen atom electron radius as a "mathematical coincidence" and didn't have a word to say what the Casimir effect and other quantum vacuum phenomenon were caused by, that can only occur only if the QV is mutable and can convey energy and momentum. So Sonny and Jerry Vera took it upon themselves last fall to increase this mathematical coincidence from one to more than 47 times as they explored the QV created atomic electron shell radii for atoms up to atomic number 7 all based on the QV being the root cause for all of it including the origins of the electron and all other subatomic particles.

BTW, IMO Jim Woodward's Mach-Effect (M-E) conjecture that is based primarily on SRT and GRT, is still in the running for a way to explain his and our test results to date. However the M-E also has its detractors since it requires that instantaneous Wheeler/Feynman radiation reaction forces being required between a local time varying mass and all the other mass/energy in the casually connected universe, since this mechanism is used to balance the M-E's energy & momentum conservation books. In the end analysis though I think that the ME will rest on the quantum nature of space-time, since in Woodward's eyes the gravitational field IS space-time, and in our eyes GRT's space-time is in reality the quantum vacuum that probably has at least 4 spatial dimensions and one time dimension!

Best, Paul March

Thanks for the insight. what does Dr. White believe he has to do in order to prove or disprove that his conjecture explains the behavior observed when the truncated frustum is energized appropriately? Assuming all the testing currently being done is successful and you get a successful set of replications from other labs. The only thing we would be able to conclusively claim is that the device, built as describes, provides thrust. How does Dr. White plan to show that the device behaves as described by his theory? Also, if Dr. White cannot prove that his theory completely explains the observations, what would be the next steps to find an explanation for the observation? And would we need to have such a theory before we begin using this thing in well defined use cases like ISS or satelite station keeping?

Birchoff:

"What does Dr. White believe he has to do in order to prove or disprove that his conjecture explains the behavior observed when the truncated frustum is energized appropriately?"

Exactly what he and I have been doing. Fleshing out his QVF conjecture in papers for the appropriate peer reviewed journals. He is also continuing the generation of the COMSOL E&M and QVF based C++ plasma code that will allow us to compare the resonant cavity lab results with the QVF based force predictions using the volume integral of the ejected semi-virtual e/p pairs for the resonant cavity geometry in question.

We have already performed the first step along this path with the preliminary results I provided in an earlier post today. In that slide which is based on the copper frustum cavity running in its TM212 mode with 50W of 1,937.188 MHz RF power applied, we showed that the predicted thrust that took over 18 hours to run the 150k time samples on an i5 PC, was 54uN and the average for five real data runs at 50W was 55uN. Is that another mathematical coincidence? I don't think so, but we won't know for sure until I have time to compare the rest of the 30W, 40W, and 60W averages on the attached slide with the same computer code that will take 17 hours to run on my lab PC for each additional example. We will also be looking at modeling and comparing the results of the Cannae test articles we tested in 2013 & 2014, along with the Shawyer/Chinese EM-Drive results with and without dielectrics in the resonant cavities. If our plasma code predictions nail all those tests to say within +/-10% of the experimental results then we can start using it to optimize the thrust output of these QVF/MHD based thrusters.

BTW, it appears that the dielectric discs may act as QV e/p pair reflectors that aid in the conical frustum shape's force symmetry breaking and force rectification process. Left to its own devices, the QV e/p pair spray generated by the applied RF energy tends to want to go in all directions instead of the desired tightly collimated unidirectional propellant beam that goes in one direction while the thruster back-reacts in the opposite direction according to Newton's third law.

As a follow up to my previous post and in the spirit of open disclosure, I'm including our last null-thrust test that ran the RF amp at 10.0Adc while its RF power was being dissipated in a 100W, 50 ohm dummy load positioned in place of the test article on the torque pendulum (TP), a picture of the new heat shields for our torque pendulum's upper and lower torsion springs, (more belts and suspenders to mitigate thermal drifts in the TP baseline), the reversed test setup drawing and the best reversed thrust plot obtained just before or during when our second and last 120W max RF amplifier was dying from internal corona discharges around its RF output circulator. Apparently the RF amp's internal gas pressure had gone down from 1 Bar to an estimated 10 Torr or less after a few days leaking air in a hard vacuum. And 0.1-to-10.0 Torr is where glow discharges are the easiest to ignite with RF signals. So much for EMPower's "hermetic" sealed RF amplifiers...

Best, Paul March

First off congratulations, and thank you very much for the information.

One question though. The use of a dummy load to the best of my understanding provides evidence to support that the thrust measurement device is not generating false positive data. Is it possible to run the Frustum in a null configuration? If so, is that in the plans before the next report is published?

Birchoff:

"Is it possible to run the Frustum in a null configuration? If so, is that in the plans before the next report is published?"

Yes and yes. In fact it was one of the requests made by the blue ribbon panel of PhDs that NASA/EP hired to review the Eagleworks Lab's theoretical and experimental work last summer. Even if will take a new mounting arrangement to get it accomplished.

Overall though the blue ribbon panel's experimentalists appeared to be pleased with our previous and upcoming lab work. However they ripped into Sonny's QVF/MHD conjecture because it relies on the quantum vacuum being mutable and engineer-able whereas the current physics mainstream thinks that the quantum vacuum is an immutable ground energy state of the universe that can-NOT be used to convey energy or momentum as proposed by Dr. White. However they brushed aside Sonny's QVF based derivation of the Bohr hydrogen atom electron radius as a "mathematical coincidence" and didn't have a word to say what the Casimir effect and other quantum vacuum phenomenon were caused by, that can only occur only if the QV is mutable and can convey energy and momentum. So Sonny and Jerry Vera took it upon themselves last fall to increase this mathematical coincidence from one to more than 47 times as they explored the QV created atomic electron shell radii for atoms up to atomic number 7 all based on the QV being the root cause for all of it including the origins of the electron and all other subatomic particles.

BTW, IMO Jim Woodward's Mach-Effect (M-E) conjecture that is based primarily on SRT and GRT, is still in the running for a way to explain his and our test results to date. However the M-E also has its detractors since it requires that instantaneous Wheeler/Feynman radiation reaction forces being required between a local time varying mass and all the other mass/energy in the casually connected universe, since this mechanism is used to balance the M-E's energy & momentum conservation books. In the end analysis though I think that the ME will rest on the quantum nature of space-time, since in Woodward's eyes the gravitational field IS space-time, and in our eyes GRT's space-time is in reality the quantum vacuum that probably has at least 4 spatial dimensions and one time dimension!

Best, Paul March

Thanks for the insight. what does Dr. White believe he has to do in order to prove or disprove that his conjecture explains the behavior observed when the truncated frustum is energized appropriately? Assuming all the testing currently being done is successful and you get a successful set of replications from other labs. The only thing we would be able to conclusively claim is that the device, built as describes, provides thrust. How does Dr. White plan to show that the device behaves as described by his theory? Also, if Dr. White cannot prove that his theory completely explains the observations, what would be the next steps to find an explanation for the observation? And would we need to have such a theory before we begin using this thing in well defined use cases like ISS or satelite station keeping?

Birchoff:

"What does Dr. White believe he has to do in order to prove or disprove that his conjecture explains the behavior observed when the truncated frustum is energized appropriately?"

Exactly what he and I have been doing. Fleshing out his QVF conjecture in papers for the appropriate peer reviewed journals. He is also continuing the generation of the COMSOL E&M and QVF based C++ plasma code that will allow us to compare the resonant cavity lab results with the QVF based force predictions using the volume integral of the ejected semi-virtual e/p pairs for the resonant cavity geometry in question.

We have already performed the first step along this path with the preliminary results I provided in an earlier post today. In that slide which is based on the copper frustum cavity running in its TM212 mode with 50W of 1,937.188 MHz RF power applied, we showed that the predicted thrust that took over 18 hours to run the 150k time samples on an i5 PC, was 54uN and the average for five real data runs at 50W was 55uN. Is that another mathematical coincidence? I don't think so, but we won't know for sure until I have time to compare the rest of the 30W, 40W, and 60W averages on the attached slide with the same computer code that will take 17 hours to run on my lab PC for each additional example. We will also be looking at modeling and comparing the results of the Cannae test articles we tested in 2013 & 2014, along with the Shawyer/Chinese EM-Drive results with and without dielectrics in the resonant cavities. If our plasma code predictions nail all those tests to say within +/-10% of the experimental results then we can start using it to optimize the thrust output of these QVF/MHD based thrusters.

BTW, it appears that the dielectric discs may act as QV e/p pair reflectors that aid in the conical frustum shape's force symmetry breaking and force rectification process. Left to its own devices, the QV e/p pair spray generated by the applied RF energy tends to want to go in all directions instead of the desired tightly collimated unidirectional propellant beam that goes in one direction while the thruster back-reacts in the opposite direction according to Newton's third law.

Best, Paul March

Fantastic...

One last question if you dont mind indulging me in a bit of educated speculation. Can the copper frustum be made smaller while maintaining the same thrust performance? I would expect that the smaller frustum would lead to different parameters. But what I am trying to gauge is if there is some lower limit on the size of the frustum.

BTW, it appears that the dielectric discs may act as QV e/p pair reflectors that aid in the conical frustum shape's force symmetry breaking and force rectification process. Left to its own devices, the QV e/p pair spray generated by the applied RF energy tends to want to go in all directions instead of the desired tightly collimated unidirectional propellant beam that goes in one direction while the thruster back-reacts in the opposite direction according to Newton's third law.

There is a LOT of research in thread 1 that we dug up concerning transferring momentum from the QV to dielectrics and how the symmetry breaking works to enable momentum transfer under EM fields. I can dig it all up again for an executive summary.

"What does Dr. White believe he has to do in order to prove or disprove that his conjecture explains the behavior observed when the truncated frustum is energized appropriately?"

Exactly what he and I have been doing. Fleshing out his QVF conjecture in papers for the appropriate peer reviewed journals. He is also continuing the generation of the COMSOL E&M and QVF based C++ plasma code that will allow us to compare the resonant cavity lab results with the QVF based force predictions using the volume integral of the ejected semi-virtual e/p pairs for the resonant cavity geometry in question. ...

Thank you for taking time giving some valuable info on ongoing work to followers of this line of research. We all have certainly a ton of questions, hope you can shed some light on the frame of reference aspects (and energetic consequences) : in the present apparently successful simulation model (quantitatively predictive), in what frame of reference the e/p pairs are "found" before they are asymmetrically accelerated and ejected by the drive's power ? Are they always harvested "at rest" relative to the frustum ?

This would allow for more kinetic energy at the end of a mission than was injected into the drive (at the cost of a disturbed vacuum in the wake...). Sorry if it may sound controversial but I dare say we see two possible outcomes : tapping energy from the vacuum, or strange memory effect of "initial velocity" (for preventing such apparent overunit yield). Sounds like the working model validates the former and not the later ?

Third possibility : a preferred rest frame for the vacuum, since the specific speed of the present experimental thrust is 1000km/s we should expect some thrust/power variations relative to sidereal time (a few tens of % if this "aether" is cosmological, a few % if it is bound to galaxy rotation...) Any other alternative discussed ?

I guess those energetic aspects are asked again and again by sceptics, the "propeller" analogy needs clarification as for the implied instant velocity of the medium pushed against. I am sceptic but without an agenda. Just wonder where it leads.

As a follow up to my previous post and in the spirit of open disclosure, I'm including our last null-thrust test that ran the RF amp at 10.0Adc while its RF power was being dissipated in a 100W, 50 ohm dummy load positioned in place of the test article on the torque pendulum (TP), a picture of the new heat shields for our torque pendulum's upper and lower torsion springs, (more belts and suspenders to mitigate thermal drifts in the TP baseline), the reversed test setup drawing and the best reversed thrust plot obtained just before or during when our second and last 120W max RF amplifier was dying from internal corona discharges around its RF output circulator. Apparently the RF amp's internal gas pressure had gone down from 1 Bar to an estimated 10 Torr or less after a few days leaking air in a hard vacuum. And 0.1-to-10.0 Torr is where glow discharges are the easiest to ignite with RF signals. So much for EMPower's "hermetic" sealed RF amplifiers...

Best, Paul March

First off congratulations, and thank you very much for the information.

One question though. The use of a dummy load to the best of my understanding provides evidence to support that the thrust measurement device is not generating false positive data. Is it possible to run the Frustum in a null configuration? If so, is that in the plans before the next report is published?

Birchoff:

"Is it possible to run the Frustum in a null configuration? If so, is that in the plans before the next report is published?"

Yes and yes. In fact it was one of the requests made by the blue ribbon panel of PhDs that NASA/EP hired to review the Eagleworks Lab's theoretical and experimental work last summer. Even if will take a new mounting arrangement to get it accomplished.

Overall though the blue ribbon panel's experimentalists appeared to be pleased with our previous and upcoming lab work. However they ripped into Sonny's QVF/MHD conjecture because it relies on the quantum vacuum being mutable and engineer-able whereas the current physics mainstream thinks that the quantum vacuum is an immutable ground energy state of the universe that can-NOT be used to convey energy or momentum as proposed by Dr. White. However they brushed aside Sonny's QVF based derivation of the Bohr hydrogen atom electron radius as a "mathematical coincidence" and didn't have a word to say what the Casimir effect and other quantum vacuum phenomenon were caused by, that can only occur only if the QV is mutable and can convey energy and momentum. So Sonny and Jerry Vera took it upon themselves last fall to increase this mathematical coincidence from one to more than 47 times as they explored the QV created atomic electron shell radii for atoms up to atomic number 7 all based on the QV being the root cause for all of it including the origins of the electron and all other subatomic particles.

BTW, IMO Jim Woodward's Mach-Effect (M-E) conjecture that is based primarily on SRT and GRT, is still in the running for a way to explain his and our test results to date. However the M-E also has its detractors since it requires that instantaneous Wheeler/Feynman radiation reaction forces being required between a local time varying mass and all the other mass/energy in the casually connected universe, since this mechanism is used to balance the M-E's energy & momentum conservation books. In the end analysis though I think that the ME will rest on the quantum nature of space-time, since in Woodward's eyes the gravitational field IS space-time, and in our eyes GRT's space-time is in reality the quantum vacuum that probably has at least 4 spatial dimensions and one time dimension!

Best, Paul March

Thanks for the insight. what does Dr. White believe he has to do in order to prove or disprove that his conjecture explains the behavior observed when the truncated frustum is energized appropriately? Assuming all the testing currently being done is successful and you get a successful set of replications from other labs. The only thing we would be able to conclusively claim is that the device, built as describes, provides thrust. How does Dr. White plan to show that the device behaves as described by his theory? Also, if Dr. White cannot prove that his theory completely explains the observations, what would be the next steps to find an explanation for the observation? And would we need to have such a theory before we begin using this thing in well defined use cases like ISS or satelite station keeping?

Birchoff:

"What does Dr. White believe he has to do in order to prove or disprove that his conjecture explains the behavior observed when the truncated frustum is energized appropriately?"

Exactly what he and I have been doing. Fleshing out his QVF conjecture in papers for the appropriate peer reviewed journals. He is also continuing the generation of the COMSOL E&M and QVF based C++ plasma code that will allow us to compare the resonant cavity lab results with the QVF based force predictions using the volume integral of the ejected semi-virtual e/p pairs for the resonant cavity geometry in question.

We have already performed the first step along this path with the preliminary results I provided in an earlier post today. In that slide which is based on the copper frustum cavity running in its TM212 mode with 50W of 1,937.188 MHz RF power applied, we showed that the predicted thrust that took over 18 hours to run the 150k time samples on an i5 PC, was 54uN and the average for five real data runs at 50W was 55uN. Is that another mathematical coincidence? I don't think so, but we won't know for sure until I have time to compare the rest of the 30W, 40W, and 60W averages on the attached slide with the same computer code that will take 17 hours to run on my lab PC for each additional example. We will also be looking at modeling and comparing the results of the Cannae test articles we tested in 2013 & 2014, along with the Shawyer/Chinese EM-Drive results with and without dielectrics in the resonant cavities. If our plasma code predictions nail all those tests to say within +/-10% of the experimental results then we can start using it to optimize the thrust output of these QVF/MHD based thrusters.

BTW, it appears that the dielectric discs may act as QV e/p pair reflectors that aid in the conical frustum shape's force symmetry breaking and force rectification process. Left to its own devices, the QV e/p pair spray generated by the applied RF energy tends to want to go in all directions instead of the desired tightly collimated unidirectional propellant beam that goes in one direction while the thruster back-reacts in the opposite direction according to Newton's third law.

Best, Paul March

What about testing for a "wake"? I vaguely remember watching a presentation Dr. White gave where he said that one way of verifying conservation is being maintained would be to demonstrate the frustum creating some sort of "wake" or its equivalent. Will that also be tested before the next report?

Those are all good observations. Just as the speed of light is Lorentz invariant so too should be the vacuum. If symmetries were broken, there should be particles or phonons emerge that are detectable. Noether's theorem comes into play here and if the Emdrive does in fact work, we need to re-examine what we know about symmetries and conservation laws, because in the end, experiment always wins. Aside from being a neat thruster, it could be an instrument which enables a better understanding of the QV.

One approach to conserve momentum is to consider spaceitself as the reaction mass. This approach evokes the old ideaof an "ether." To be strictly consistent with empiricalevidence, such as the Michelson-Morely experiment, anyfurther research to revisit the idea of an ether would have toimpose the condition that an ether is electromagneticallyLorentz invariant- Note that this condition is a characteristicof the ZPF [7].

So that approach is out because it is in opposition to Michelson-Morely.

Quote

An alternative to considering space as the reaction mass isto further develop Mach's Principle. Mach's Principle assertsthat surrounding matter gives rise to inertial frames, and thatthe inertial frames are somehow connected to the surroundingmatter [9]. Mach wrote that although he felt a connection tothe surrounding matter was required for the property of inertiato be detectable, he also admitted that such a treatment wasnot necessary to satisfactorily describe the laws of motion[20]. Specifically, to be useful for propulsion physics, aformalism of Mach's Principle is required that provides ameans to wansmit reaction forces to surrounding matter. Thisimplies developing a quantitative description for how thesurrounding matter creates an inertial frame, and how pushingagainst that flame with a space drive is actually pushingagainst the distant surrounding matter.

That sounds pretty good, but it leaves out two very important "sources" of inertia, which to Mach, were not directly observable to him. The quantum world, and the bound energy within the nucleus of atoms, and of course the QV. The philosophy of Mach valued what was directly observable. In modern times, materialism and physicalism are relics. So this approach is incomplete, thus a no go.

Quote

It is also possible to consider the very structure ofspacetime itself as a candidate for propulsive interactions. If itwere possible, for example, to create asymmetries in the veryproperties of spacetime which give rise to inertial frames, itmay be possible to create net inertial forces. This is similarto the"warp drive" suggested by Alcubierre [4]

Much better....

Uneven radiation pressure (from the QV and the RF simultaneously) across the cavity and the dielectric seems much more plausible than trying to accelerate virtual particle pairs in the style of MHD. Like Chuck Norris, you don't mess with virtual particles, virtual particles mess with you.

If the quantum vacuum is degradable and malleable as we think it should be, then to conserve momentum a QV wake has to be generated in the QV media as a Q-Thruster goes by just like a ship's propeller leaves a disturbance in the water as it goes by. We think that the density of the QV is normally around its cosmological average of 9.1x10^-27 kg/m^3, but its density can be greatly increased by the presence of E&M fields and especially very strong and fast time-varying E&M fields that occur is microwave resonant cavities with large Quality Factors greater than say 1,000, or around elementary charged particles like electrons or protons where the QV density goes up to nuclear mass density as you approach the surface of the particle. Suggest anything? However in the paper we are now trying to get published with no takers so far, we find that the QV density should drop off very rapidly from a high density volume like a proton and in fact it follows the same drop off in density with distance as the Casimir effect does, i.e., 1 / r^4 where r = the distance from the resonant cavity boundary. With that being the case it would be near impossible to detect the QV wake behind a Q-Thruster only generating milliNewtons or Newtons or even in tens of Newtons.

So what's to do? To detect a QV wake from a Q-thruster at even short distances from the source we think we will have to use another RF excited resonant cavity in a form of QV parametric amplification that is designed to produce a high density QV state just like in a Q-Thruster, but not to produce thrust. Instead it will be optimized to monitor its time varying QV density as various very weak QV wake fields come in, are amplified and detected, then pass out of it again to go back to the low density QV state once again. This has some interesting implications especially when you finish reading the attached paper from a PhD from Rice University here in Houston.

Last topic for the night for me. Someone on this list asked if one could extract energy from the QV. If the QV is GRT space-time, and space-time is the cosmological gravitational field that is created by all the causally connected mass/energy in our section of the universe, then we live in a high pressure sea of gravitational energy. Now if the QV energy state is degradable and locally changeable, then one can posit the possibility of a thermodynamic energy conversion cycle that can extract energy from a pressure difference created in this QV media relative to the QV background average pressure, with a net decrease in this universal gravitational pressure or temperature reflective of the amount of energy so extracted. And try to remember that gravitational energy is negative energy. I'll leave the rest to you folks to draw your own conclusions from what this might mean...

A couple of us posted that it feels very relevant to the dynamics inside of a resonant cavity. What is interesting is the end result of confining vacuum fluctuations:

Quote

In that case, the fluctuation-mediated attraction between the atoms becomes orders of magnitude stronger than in free space. Usually, the force decreases rapidly with increasing distance between the atoms. Due to the transmission line, it falls off with one over the distance cubed, instead of one over the seventh power of the distance, as in the usual case.

As far as the difference in vacuum energy goes, we've discussed the possibility that there exists a "more negative" energy condition at the small end of the cavity WRT the large end. Less modes fit small end vs large end. No calculations were made.

Either way, I know there is vacuum energy difference in potential from the top to the bottom of the cavity and those relative differences are all that matter. From there, after mathematical conversion to momentum, it doesn't take a mathematician to know that the competing vacuum and RF momentum contributions to the dielectric aren't exactly equal.

If the quantum vacuum is degradable and malleable as we think it should be, then to conserve momentum a QV wake has to be generated in the QV media as a Q-Thruster goes by just like a ship's propeller leaves a disturbance in the water as it goes by. We think that the density of the QV is normally around its cosmological average of 9.1x10^-27 kg/m^3, but its density can be greatly increased by the presence of E&M fields and especially very strong and fast time-varying E&M fields that occur is microwave resonant cavities with large Quality Factors greater than say 1,000, or around elementary charged particles like electrons or protons where the QV density goes up to nuclear mass density as you approach the surface of the particle. Suggest anything? However in the paper we are now trying to get published with no takers so far, we find that the QV density should drop off very rapidly from a high density volume like a proton and in fact it follows the same drop off in density with distance as the Casimir effect does, i.e., 1 / r^4 where r = the distance from the resonant cavity boundary. With that being the case it would be near impossible to detect the QV wake behind a Q-Thruster only generating milliNewtons or Newtons or even in tens of Newtons.

So what's to do? To detect a QV wake from a Q-thruster at even short distances from the source we think we will have to use another RF excited resonant cavity in a form of QV parametric amplification that is designed to produce a high density QV state just like in a Q-Thruster, but not to produce thrust. Instead it will be optimized to monitor its time varying QV density as various very weak QV wake fields come in, are amplified and detected, then pass out of it again to go back to the low density QV state once again. This has some interesting implications especially when you finish reading the attached paper from a PhD from Rice University here in Houston.

Last topic for the night for me. Someone on this list asked if one could extract energy from the QV. If the QV is GRT space-time, and space-time is the cosmological gravitational field that is created by all the causally connected mass/energy in our section of the universe, then we live in a high pressure sea of gravitational energy. Now if the QV energy state is degradable and locally changeable, then one can posit the possibility of a thermodynamic energy conversion cycle that can extract energy from a pressure difference created in this QV media relative to the QV background average pressure, with a net decrease in this universal gravitational pressure or temperature reflective of the amount of energy so extracted. And try to remember that gravitational energy is negative energy. I'll leave the rest to you folks to draw your own conclusions from what this might mean...

Best, Paul March

Thank you for participating in the forum Paul. As far as the paper goes, why not publish publicly and let your peers see it and validate it without the "Star Chamber" reviewers?

Regarding the QV wake, does measuring it really matter in terms of validity if tens of Newtons of thrust (or more) are predictably being measured? [Serious question]

If the quantum vacuum is degradable and malleable as we think it should be, then to conserve momentum a QV wake has to be generated in the QV media as a Q-Thruster goes by just like a ship's propeller leaves a disturbance in the water as it goes by. We think that the density of the QV is normally around its cosmological average of 9.1x10^-27 kg/m^3, but its density can be greatly increased by the presence of E&M fields and especially very strong and fast time-varying E&M fields that occur is microwave resonant cavities with large Quality Factors greater than say 1,000, or around elementary charged particles like electrons or protons where the QV density goes up to nuclear mass density as you approach the surface of the particle. Suggest anything? However in the paper we are now trying to get published with no takers so far, we find that the QV density should drop off very rapidly from a high density volume like a proton and in fact it follows the same drop off in density with distance as the Casimir effect does, i.e., 1 / r^4 where r = the distance from the resonant cavity boundary. With that being the case it would be near impossible to detect the QV wake behind a Q-Thruster only generating milliNewtons or Newtons or even in tens of Newtons.

So what's to do? To detect a QV wake from a Q-thruster at even short distances from the source we think we will have to use another RF excited resonant cavity in a form of QV parametric amplification that is designed to produce a high density QV state just like in a Q-Thruster, but not to produce thrust. Instead it will be optimized to monitor its time varying QV density as various very weak QV wake fields come in, are amplified and detected, then pass out of it again to go back to the low density QV state once again. This has some interesting implications especially when you finish reading the attached paper from a PhD from Rice University here in Houston.

Last topic for the night for me. Someone on this list asked if one could extract energy from the QV. If the QV is GRT space-time, and space-time is the cosmological gravitational field that is created by all the causally connected mass/energy in our section of the universe, then we live in a high pressure sea of gravitational energy. Now if the QV energy state is degradable and locally changeable, then one can posit the possibility of a thermodynamic energy conversion cycle that can extract energy from a pressure difference created in this QV media relative to the QV background average pressure, with a net decrease in this universal gravitational pressure or temperature reflective of the amount of energy so extracted. And try to remember that gravitational energy is negative energy. I'll leave the rest to you folks to draw your own conclusions from what this might mean...

Best, Paul March

Thank you for participating in the forum Paul. As far as the paper goes, why not publish publicly and let your peers see it and validate it without the "Star Chamber" reviewers?

Regarding the QV wake, does measuring it really matter in terms of validity if tens of Newtons of thrust (or more) are predictably being measured? [Serious question]

As to your third to last sentence. Woah!!!.......

Well you have two issues at play here. First off is whether or not the device produces thrust. The second one is whether or not Dr. White's theory is the correct explanation for why the device produces thrust. being able to measure tens of newtons of thrust would simply get you easily verifiable proof that the device produces thrust. On the other hand it will not get your proof that Dr. White's proposed theory is the correct explanation. That said, showing a strong correlation between the observed scaling with predicted scaling and using the proposed theory to predict the null configuration of the device (verified by observation). All would strengthen the case for why the proposed theory that explains the operation of the device is correct. Assuming Dr. White had all those things, being able to observe some sort of "Wake" would be the icing on the cake, especially if the device used to detect the wake is predicted by the theory.

In January 2015, Roger Shawyer put a document online entitled A Note on the Principles of EmDrive force measurement.Please leave out his theoretical explanation about group velocities for now and let's focus on his experimental claims about measurements of reaction forces. He basically says:

1. The EmDrive creates two opposite forces:- a thrust T- a reaction force R = Mawhere M = mass of the thruster, and a = acceleration of the thruster.

2. Not net force can be measured if the cavity is absolutely static, because in this case T and R cancel out.

3. The cavity needs to move (to accelerate) even a bit for the forces to appear, even if the acceleration is tiny and due for example to a thermal expansion of the cavity walls.

4. According to the experimental setup, either T or R can be measured, hence a difference in the direction of the force (toward the smaller or bigger plate of the cavity).

What do you think about those claims? Especially the one about the reaction force R.

["As far as the difference in vacuum energy goes, we've discussed the possibility that there exists a "more negative" energy condition at the small end of the cavity WRT the large end. Less modes fit small end vs large end. No calculations were made."]

This is the dispersion relation calculation. The evaluation is made as the difference from one end of the cavity to the other. A "boost" is made to an accelerated frame of reference which eliminates that difference, ie. "v is everywhere close to c" This is just the "trivial" approximation as in:

* Hydrodynamics of the Vacuum_0409292v2.pdf

" However, the vacuum is a Lorentz invariant medium; it has no rest frame. The appropriate frame for the NFA is determined solely by the initial conditions. If in some frame the NFA conditions are satisfied at t = 0 then they will remain satisfied at all later times. One may trivially take a NFA solution and boost it by a large Lorentz boost to obtain an approximate solution to the original relativistic equations in which v is everywhere close to 1. Only when the range of v values is a significant fraction of unity is it necessary to abandon the NFA and return to the relativistic equations, (4.26, 4.27)."

The (static) force then appears as the equivalent "weight" of the photons in the AFR.

Edit: To get to the QM version you need to evaluate a total wavefunction and show that it satisfies (for example) the self-accelerating condition, or the Sachs-Schwebel current, or some equivalent particle-pair generation criteria. The self-acceleration looks good so far, and conserves momentum.